Ellen here (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

Elaine here (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ellen is an SPA to get the article LiveChat deleted (see entire contribution history), and to remove information pertaining to it from related articles ([1]). Elaine's only contributions thus far have been the creation of an article Comm100, which appears to be a competitor to LiveChat, as well as an attempt to get LIVECHAT Software deleted. If these aren't the same person, they are at best two people colluding to suppress a competitor and promote their own product on Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• I provided some WP:CORPORATE/WP:COI/WP:V advice to Elaine as she requested help with drafting Comm100. If this were her only issue, a COI in writing a new article, I would support full rehabilitation. As she was also involved with a competitor's article (most COI work is promotional not demotional), this situation is very different. She should be cautioned that any non-neutral work on her own article will be cause for a block and should be at least temporarily banned from working on articles of other companies in the field. There are many COI editors who successfully contribute articles about their companies. This situation is quite different from that. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean "she was also involved with a competitor's account" or "a competitor's article"? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Article, not account. Fixed. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was an admin that declined the speedy deletes on the competitor's article and you can see my feedback on the user talk pages. To my opinion is is a strong case of DUCK. At this time I would not call it abusive use, more like ignorance of our policy. Not relevant to this case I am also going through some software lists to see if there are other cases of competitor prods and speedy nominations. User:Sabrina Gage created the earlier version of Comm100 but now I see she was never notified of the deletion. And I suspect a different person working for the company. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this as the deleting admin, although I wasn't the user who tagged it for deletion. Looks as if this passes WP:DUCK. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged the sock, warned the master. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]